Most of the discussions on creation vs. evolution revolve around what has happened in the past. Where did we come from? How did we come to be? For the sake of this argument, let's just think about the future for a bit.

We can all pretty much predict that people and animals won't just appear out of thin air tomorrow. They will grow inside their mothers and eventually come out into the world. Many of those children will find a mate and have more children of their own.

Most of the new babies will display traits that are very much like their parents'. How many times have we heard someone say, "She looks just like her mother," or "the apple dosen't fall far from the tree?"

I have two kids of my own, and my son looks very much like I, and my daughter is a mirror of my wife. Most dog breeders would bet that if they let two yellow labs mate, that in a few months, the mother will give birth to a litter of yellow labs.

Whatever you want to call it, breeding, mating, procreation, it's how new varities are brought into existence. Whether or not you believe that we are the result of evolution, it's hard to argue that we don't see it in action today, and if you don't, try telling that to your kids.

Variations within a kind is not evolution. Going from a swamp soup to intelligent life is. And swamp soup still exist, but I see no life, in existence, comming out of it in different states of evolving. Can you show me one?

Just to keep the argument simple, I'm not talking about amino acids and how they form simple DNA strands out of complex chemicals or "swamp soup," as you call it. The evolution of say, a simple reproducing organism into a thinking creature, takes a long, long time by human standards, and thus, it is difficult to show quick little examples in this context.

Again, I want to just talk about creation and evolution from this point on. What examples of creation will we see tomorrow? I doubt any new people or creatures will just appear out of this air. What is the future of Creationism? How do we learn about how it works in our everyday lives? How do we teach our children to study Creationism so that they can apply it?

Many medical advances have come about through the study of genes, DNA, and micro-biology in general. All of these fields have a direct working relationship with the theory of evolution, just like the fields of physics and astronomy have a direct working relationship with the theory of gravity. What advances in medicine will come from children who are taught Creationism in lieu of evolution?

Even if you believe Creationism is how we came to be, there are no examples of it at work today. Simple fruit fly experiments show evolution working in such a clear fashion that grade school children can understand the process. Creationists should get together some experiments that show the effects of Creationism. Let me know how that goes, as I'll be first in line.

Just to keep the argument simple, I'm not talking about amino acids and how they form simple DNA strands out of complex chemicals or "swamp soup," as you call it.Ã‚Â The evolution of say, a simple reproducing organism into a thinking creature, takes a long, long time by human standards, and thus, it is difficult to show quick little examples in this context.

Again, I want to just talk about creation and evolution from this point on. What examples of creation will we see tomorrow? I doubt any new people or creatures will just appear out of this air. What is the future of Creationism? How do we learn about how it works in our everyday lives? How do we teach our children to study Creationism so that they can apply it?

Many medical advances have come about through the study of genes, DNA, and micro-biology in general. All of these fields have a direct working relationship with the theory of evolution, just like the fields of physics and astronomy have a direct working relationship with the theory of gravity.Ã‚Â What advances in medicine will come from children who are taught Creationism in lieu of evolution? Ã‚Â Even if you believe Creationism is how we came to be, there are no examples of it at work today. Simple fruit fly experiments show evolution working in such a clear fashion that grade school children can understand the process.Ã‚Â Creationists should get together some experiments that show the effects of Creationism.Ã‚Â Let me know how that goes, as I'll be first in line.

Perfect example of this is the Stanley Miller experiment. Miller cheated to get his results. And just like pelt down man, science still uses it even after this is known.

Excuse #1: It shows that it can be done.Excuse #2: It shows that what can happen will happen.

Two lame excuses for a lie, that they will not even own up to. Is what Miller did (the cheating part to get his results) written up in any science book? Nope. Is it written in any school text book? Nope. Why? People would figure out that it was a lie, so science with holds the truth of what really happened. Holding details of this experiment means your hiding something.

Is this a repeat of the Peltdown Man?Example: Pelt down man was still being taught as truth in our school text books 150 years after it was found to be fraud. Now, I want you to explain to me what makes it ok to lie on purpose to children?

Is this like the Haeckel's lie?Here again, another lie that was allowed in our text books, and taught to our kids over a 100 years after being found a fraud, a lie.

And you have a problem with creationists doing what? And what makes you think that the information your recieving is not a lie?

Justreal:Many medical advances have come about through the study of genes, DNA, and micro-biology in general. All of these fields have a direct working relationship with the theory of evolution, just like the fields of physics and astronomy have a direct working relationship with the theory of gravity.

Excuse me but not advance has been made under the premise that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms, ie the theory of evolution. There isn't anything in the genes, DNA or micro-biology that demonstrates a population of bacteria will ever "evolve" into anything other than bacteria.

Thats like saying fish will remain fish. Mainly due to new medications and anti bacterial soaps, new species of bacteria are evolving faster than almost any other life form we know of. When one variation of bacteria becomes so different from it's "parents" it becomes a new species, we may still call it bacteria because there so many types, it would be much to difficult to give each one it's own category. So bacteria does not remain bacteria. We are just to lazy or logical not to give every new species of bacteria it's own classification. Just because two totally different species of fish are refered to as fish, that does not make them the same. If so, humans would be the same as all other primates. To be clear, for the sake of this debate, lets say every new species gets a new name and classification. The main factor in determining if two creatures are still the same species, is if they can have offspring. Under our more detailed and accurate naming convention, we can now say, some species of bacteria have evolved into a new species called "newbacteria."
So to sum up, bacteria does not just remain bacteria. Some bacteria has evolved into a new species called "newbacteria." Thats evolution not creation.

This got way off topic though. What is the future of Creationism? How can we use it? How will we teach it? What do we do with all those poor scientists that thought they were on the right track with evolution? Forget about the past for a moment.
What are we to call the processes of breeding and adaptive selection? Giving birth to babies that will have a new combination of traits, slightly different than those of their parents. I think the word evolution describes that process quite well. An act of creation would be like instant magic, no subtle changes over long periods of time. We don't see that at all. People, including scientists, would freak out if creatures were to just pop into exsistance. We know that dosen't happen.
By the way, variations within a kind, is evolution. In the long run, all the minor varations add up to a point to where some variant species will no longer mate with other variants of that same species and they will eventually split off, yielding two different species, although closely related. That's the case with lions and tigers. They are still so much like eachother that they could breed with eachother making a Liger if they did so. If people continued to be geologically seperated as they were for thousands of years, the racial variants would combine and add up to a point where the people in different geological areas would eventually have to be considered different species.

Lets keep this topic about the future. Will we see babies being born with a mix of traits that they get from their parents, as is described by evolution? Or, will we see new babies with new traits just fall from the sky or appear out of thin air into a mothers loving arms?
I think, no matter what you believe got us here, it's evolution that will be responsible for the new varaitions of species we will see in the future. New varaitions will lead to new species over long periods of time. What predictions can creationists make? (the one about bacteria was a bust ) Is God going to break out his old building blocks and start cranking out some new life forms? If so, that would be so cool! Remember, keep this topic about the future of Evolution vs. Creationism.

Every time a new baby comes into this world with a mixture of traits they recieved from their parents, we will have yet another example of the process of evolution.

What examples of creation will we see in the future? (please try and answer this question) I want to be first on the scene when God plops down another new lifeform!

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve closed this thread because Justreal is here to waste peopleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s time. It is a pet peeve of mine when evolutionists equivocate on what evolution is. They equivocate on the word evolution by claiming micro-evolution is Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â, then essentially declare victory. Then we get the usual strawman arguments to follow. I find this to be one of the most intellectually dishonest arguments going, and never intended this forum to tolerate this kind of blatant equivocation.

Part of it has been my fault for not being clear in the forum rules, instead I have just posted this position or PMed the person. I did have in the sub-label of the CvE forum: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Does all life originate from a common ancestor?Ã¢â‚¬Â but this admittedly isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t prominent enough. I will update the rules soon with emphasis so we can avoid this in the future. I find that many evolutionists are willing to stick to large-scale evolution, and those are the individuals that are welcome here.

Warning to evolutionists: The Creation vs Evolution Forum is intended to debate the question, "Does all life originate from a common ancestor?". If you are one of those evolutionists who puts forth examples of micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) and claim they prove "evolution", then this forum is not for you. Please see my article "The Evolution Definition Shell Game" that adresses this intellectually dishonest equivocation.

I also added a shorter blurb to the Forum rules.

Fred

Added: After a day or so, I plan on moving this to the "bad thread" forum recently created in the Creation vs Evolution subforums near the top of the page. Of particular emphasis are utterly absurd statements like this: "Every time a new baby comes into this world with a mixture of traits they recieved from their parents, we will have yet another example of the process of evolution." This is as absurd a statement as one can make, it is the height of equivocation and is dishonest, since there is not a creationist in the world who denies that small scale change (termed "microevolution" by evolutionists) occurs.